Even Kanye West Couldn’t Say This
By Mitch Berg
Yesterday we published the now-infamous (albeit still ignored-by-the-MSM) video of Barack Obama’s Kanye-West-like speech to a group of African-American activists about the racism tied to the aid to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
As Paul Mirengoff notes, not only was it racist, it was completely false:
Obama’s claim was false. A few weeks before Obama gave his Hampton speech, Congress had waived the Stafford Act in connection with $6.9 billion in federal aid for New Orleans.
But it gets worse for Obama. Neo-neocon points out that Obama was one of 14 Senators who voted against the waiver of the Stafford Act. So not only was Obama’s complaint false, it was one he would have lacked standing to raise, given his vote on the issue.
Now, Obama voted against the Stafford Act waiver because it was part of a bill providing funds for the war effort in Iraq. Apparently, Obama’s desire to make sure the surge failed and we lost to al Qaeda in Iraq trumped his concern for the good people of New Orleans. Or maybe it was all posturing, Obama’s specialty, since he knew the money would go to Iraq and the Stafford Act would be waived regardless of how he voted.
Perhaps Obama should have voted “present.”
I suggest all of the above, plus the fact that being a Democrat in Chicago means never being accountable to anyone.
Of course, the mainstream media does their best to keep that going nationally. It’s just gotten a lot harder to do that.
October 4th, 2012 at 8:07 am
“… plus the fact that being a Democrat in Chicago means never being accountable to anyone.”
Sadly all the young j-school grads leave their lessons with terse declarations that they will ‘afflict the comfortable’ and ‘speak truth to power’ (my favorite) only to be assimilated into the Dominant Media Culture borg where speaking truth to power only means sniping at Republicans who control 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal government and afflicting the comfortable means looking the other way when Democrats shovel money to their already very wealthy campaign contributors.
The silver lining in all this: When a Democrat gets busted for corruption (it happens) or a sex scandal (with in fact a young, albeit of age, boy), we get to read or watch the story and play “NAME! THAT! PARTY!”
October 4th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Mark Levin had a rant about this last night on the radio. In light of last night’s disaster for Obama, the press may actually have to report this Stafford Act illusion for what it is: a blatant act of duplicity, hypocrisy and political calculation.
October 4th, 2012 at 9:23 am
The tell tale sign of complete BS is the ever moving shinny ball. I still have no idea if conservatives think waiving the Stafford Act was good policy. Everything else is just grift for the mark. Obama at least has clear consistent position. The Stafford Act waiver is a good thing, but not good enough to justify voting for a bigger badder thing, the Iraq War. Agree or disagree at least it makes sense.
On the other side, we started with Tucker Carlson saying there was no need to waive the Stafford Act because NOLA got all the money it needed. Now you say the need to waive the Stafford Act was so urgent that Obama should have voted for it even if he opposed the Iraq funding it was attached to. What was once trivial is now overwhelming.
So should the Feds have waived the Stafford Act or not? If they should have, why did it take so long and the election of a Democratic Congress to make it happen? If you think it was right to waive the Stafford Act in May 2007, why didn’t that happen right after Katrina like in NYC or S FLA? Which brings us right back to Obama’s orginial question.
October 4th, 2012 at 10:11 am
RickDFL said:
“I still have no idea”
True.
October 4th, 2012 at 10:17 am
RickDFL still attempts, somehow, to gain traction….
October 4th, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Yesterday we published the now-infamous (albeit still ignored-by-the-MSM) video…”
Mitch, just so everyone reading completely understands the details here, this tape was not only ignored by the msm, CNN actually had this tape in their possession, but never aired it.. The first name in news, blah blah blah.
PS: Rickdfl: “Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act Stafford Act.”
October 4th, 2012 at 10:18 am
Justr heard that Algore said the reason Obama did poorly in the debate last night was due to the thin air in Denver.
No, this is not from the Onion.
October 4th, 2012 at 10:18 am
And “ever moving shinny (sic) ball”? This from the guy who moved the goal posts from no Stafford Act exemption to how many exemptions?
October 4th, 2012 at 11:40 am
It’s funny you right-wing loonies are spending so much time looking for years-old video of Obama in hopes something will pay attention. Maybe you noticed he got his ass kicked in a debate? Last night? You might try going with that.
October 4th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Obama at least has clear consistent position.
Obama’s position is neither clear nor consistent because it opportunistic. .
RickDFL thinks its okay — even virtuous — to deny colored folks federal aid if by doing so you can make a futile gesture against a war your country is fighting.
Jesus Christ, Rick, how can you sleep at night?
October 4th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
The only place they take the Stafford Act seriously is Branson, Missouri.
October 4th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
From the NY Times:
And its report brought to the forefront a wave of questions that have long been favorite topics in conservative circles: about Mr. Obama’s views on race; his associations with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.; and whether the mainstream media was willfully ignoring embarrassing episodes from Mr. Obama’s past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/07-talk-by-obama-resurfaces-renewing-questions-on-race.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Why in the heck should these be only “favorite topics in conservative circles”? Because liberals don’t care about integrity? Conservatives have demonstrated a greater understanding of Obama’s character and abilities than the liberals who voted him into office.
October 4th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“Because liberals don’t care about integrity?”
Integrity requires standards. In a morally relativistic vacuum, standards are negotiable and can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
October 4th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
“It’s funny you right-wing loonies are spending so much time looking for years-old video of Obama in hopes something will pay attention. Maybe you noticed he got his ass kicked in a debate? Last night? You might try going with that.”
Conservatives can multi-task. That comes with being grown-ups.
October 4th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Terry:
“Obama’s position is neither clear nor consistent because it opportunistic.” What is opportunistic about the position A is good, but B is worse, so I don’t want to do A and B? Is it opportunistic to like steak but hate battery acid and so not eat a steak covered in battery acid?
“RickDFL thinks its okay — even virtuous — to deny colored folks federal aid”
So you are agreeing it was wrong to deny federal aid before June 2007? So up till Jan 2007 whose fault was that? Who controlled Congress and the WH?
“if by doing so you can make a futile gesture against a war your country is fighting.” It is not futile if it allows Obama to get elected on a promise to end the war, he gets elected, and he ends the war. Which he did. As John Kerry found out it is hard to run against a war you voted for.
As a bonus, Harry Reid gets more leverage to force the GOP to allow Democratic priorities like the waiver included on a GOP bill like Iraq funding. The more Dems committed to voting against any bill with Iraq funding, the higher a price Ried can demand for letting the bill come to a vote.
So yes I will take the guy for the waiver but against the war over the guy against the waiver and for the war.
October 4th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
So you are agreeing it was wrong to deny federal aid before June 2007? So up till Jan 2007 whose fault was that? Who controlled Congress and the WH?
You have no right to ask me anything, RickDFL. You are free to comment on anything I have written, just as I am free to comment on anything you have written.
October 4th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
So yes I will take the guy for the waiver but against the war over the guy against the waiver and for the war.
Lots of work justifying and rationalizing the vote of the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois.
But of course Obama allowed no such excuse-making when (he said) NOLA was not given an immediate Stafford Act waiver for Katrina.
Apparently every person who chose not to insist on the waiver — except for him — was motivated by racism.
What a nasty piece of work he is.
October 4th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Angryclown,
Why choose? There’s plenty to go around!
(Is it racist to say that?)
October 4th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Ah, Terry, I think I am going to have a sad. Very well, no questions just comments. You don’t know how to use the word ‘opportunistic’ correctly. Since you won’t express any position on the Stafford waiver itself or the failure to do it before Jan 2007, I don’t think you give a rat’s behind about the people of NOLA. And you really don’t like it when a black man asks why that might be.
I don’t know what it means to “insist on the waiver”. President Bush could have waived the Stafford Act. At any time the GOP in Congress could have voted with the Dems to waive it. Dems, including Obama never, even after the Jan 2007, had the power to waive the Act on their own. To get the waiver lifted they had to cut a deal with the GOP. So yes, people who have the unilateral power to do X and do not get judged differently than people whose only option is to do X as part of some larger package of actions.
October 4th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
RickDFL said:
“Is it opportunistic to like steak but hate battery acid and so not eat a steak covered in battery acid?”
The RickDFL version of “Deep Thoughts”.
October 4th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
When Obama’s lost Angryclown….
October 4th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
MITCH! RICKDFL IS PICKING ON ME!!
WAAAAAH!!
October 4th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Wait a minute- EGore said Obama did poorly because of “the thin air in Denver”? He does know that Romney was breathing the same air, right?
October 4th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Over at the Kingdom of Mad King Charles, the ponytail was claiming that Obama would mop the floor with Romney because he’d heard that Romney got stuck in a hotel next to a rail yard and the coming and going of the trains would keep him awake all night.
Romney’s not used to this. Normally, while sleeping at his beach-front chalet or his lake-front secluded estate, there are none of these “freight trains” that seem to plague the lives of the little people.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41000_Pre-Debate_Restless_Romney
October 5th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Don’t you know that the thin air didn’t affect Romney because the undead don’t need to breathe.